Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S Majestic Industries Limited on 24 February, 2011
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066. Court No. I Date of Hearing/Decision: 24.02.2011 For approval and signature: Honble Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Excise Appeal No. 1156 of 2005 [Arising out of order in appeal No. 852/CE/CHD/04 dated 31.12.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Chandigarh]. CCE, Chandigarh Appellants [Rep. by Shri Nitin Anand, DR] Vs. M/s Majestic Industries Limited Respondent [Rep. by Shri Sharad Kumar, Advocate] Coram: Honble Sh. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President Honble Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) ORAL ORDER NO.
Per: Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar:
Heard the DR for the appellant and learned Advocate for the respondents.
2. The appeal arises from order dated 31.12.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty against the respondents to Rs. 5,000/- from the penalty of Rs. 15 lakh which was imposed by the Joint Commissioner in its adjudication order dated 05.10.2004.
3. Undisputedly, by the order dated 05.10.2004, the adjudicating authority had disallowed the modvat credit to the manufacturers M/s Jagan Tubes Limited, Derabassi and had ordered recovery of the said amount alongwith interest besides imposing equal amount of penalty. While passing the said order, penalty was imposed against the respondents herein as they were dealers who were alleged to have issued the invoices without actual supply of goods. Undisputedly, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in an appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority at the instance of the manufacturer had been set aside by this Tribunal under Final order No. 328/2010-Ex. dated 06.05.2010 and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh. Being so, unless the main matter relating to the manufacturer is decided in the present case, it is too premature to decide this appeal. Besides, it may influence the decision to be arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) on remand, and may also lead to have two contrary decisions in relation to the same subject matter. In such circumstances, therefore, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and to remand the same to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision in the matter to be decided alongwith the appeal remanded by the Tribunal under Final order No. 328/2010-Ex dated 06.05.2010.
4. In the circumstances, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide as stated above.
(Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar) President (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) Pant ` 1